New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
deduplication of louvain and leiden doc #570
Comments
Sounds like a great idea. generally the order should be the same as in the signature, but I don’t see a problem in reshuffling the lovain args to match the leiden ones. We have to be careful with details though: e.g. Type of partition to use. Defaults to :class:`~louvain.RBConfigurationVertexPartition`.
For the available options, consult the documentation for :func:`~louvain.find_partition`. Type of partition to use. Defaults to :class:`~leidenalg.RBConfigurationVertexPartition`.
For the available options, consult the documentation for :func:`~leidenalg.find_partition`. @falexwolf do you think we should go ahead with https://pypi.org/project/legacy-api-wrap (and introduce |
Wouldn't it actually make sense to merge louvain and leiden into one function and add an algorithm option or so? |
I think we talked about that at one point. But yes, makes a lot of sense. |
maybe |
@gokceneraslan since they are largely the same thing (just a different optimization strategy), do we even need to keep both? Otherwise, I think I'd prefer them to be separate functions, so you don't get argument interactions. For example, the |
louvain
andleiden
have a lot of redundant documentation. After having learned in #557, I could file a PR to deduplicate this. Would it be valid to shuffle the arguments in such a way that the shared documentation is grouped together? Otherwise, one would have to introduce many short strings and puzzle them together.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: